Of all the arguments against same-sex marriage, the most immediately compelling is that it is hurts children. If children have a right to anything, it is to begin life with a mother and father.

Death, divorce, abandonment, a single parent's mistakes -- any one of these deprives children of a mother or father. But only same-sex marriage would legally ensure that children are deprived from birth of either a mother or a father.

Why, then, doesn't a child's right to begin life with a mother and father have any impact on the millions of people who either advocate same-sex marriage or can't make up their minds on the issue?

Among gay activists the reason is narcissism. Though gays already have the right to raise children without an opposite-sex parent and the right to adopt children, gay activists want society to enshrine one-sex parenting with its highest seal of approval -- marriage. For gay activists, the fact that a child does best with a good mother and good father is of no significance (or worse, denied). All that matters is what is good for gays.

And what about the heterosexuals who support same-sex marriage? They ignore the issue of its effects on children because they either do not want to confront the issue or because they are so intimidated by the liberation trinity -- "equality," "rights" and "tolerance" -- that even children's welfare becomes a non-issue.

Advocates of same-sex marriage have, therefore, many good reasons not to talk about issue of children. Even the most passionate advocate does not argue that it is better for a child to have two mothers and no father or two fathers and no mother.

But, the same-sex marriage advocates will respond, while children may not be better off, they will be just as well off, with two fathers and no mother or two mothers and no father.

This claim, however, is dishonest. So dishonest that it leads to a certain cognitive dissonance among many of those who make it. On the one hand, they don't really believe that mothers (or fathers) are useless, and they do not wish to lie. On the other hand, they know that they have to say that a mother and father are no better for children than two same-sex parents or they will lose the public's support for same-sex marriage. Were they to admit the obvious truth -- that same-sex marriage means that society will legally and deliberately deprive increasing numbers of children of either a mother or a father -- few Americans would support the legal redefinition of marriage and family.

So, same-sex marriage advocates now argue that children do not do better with a mother and a father.

To buttress this absurdity, they repeatedly ask, "Where are the studies" that prove that children do better with a father and a mother? Not only are there no such studies, they claim, but in fact, "studies show" that that children raised with parents of the same sex do just as well as children raised by a father and a mother.

But this claim, too, is dishonest.

As Professor Don Browning of the University of Chicago recently wrote in The New York Times, "We know next to nothing" about the effects of same-sex parenting on children.

"The body of sociological knowledge about same-sex parenting," he and his co-author wrote, "is scant at best. ... There are no rigorous, large-scale studies on the effect of same-sex marriage on the couples' children.

"Steven Nock, a leading scholar of marriage at the University of Virginia, wrote in March 2001 after a thorough review that every study on this question 'contained at least one fatal flaw' and 'not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research.'"

So the statement that "studies show" that children don't do better with a mother and father is as factually mendacious as it is morally repugnant. Why then are so many fooled by it? Because "studies show" has become the refuge of those who do not wish to think. I hear this lack of thought regularly from college educated callers to my radio show who refuse to think an issue through, or to make a moral judgment, without first having seen what "studies show."

But does anyone who thinks, rather than awaits "studies" to affirm their biases, really believe that a mother is useless if a child has two fathers, or that a father is unnecessary if a child has two mothers? The idea that men and women do not have entirely distinctive contributions to make to the rearing of a child is so absurd that it is frightening that many well educated -- and only the well educated -- believe it.

There are many powerful arguments against same-sex marriage, and in subsequent columns I will offer them. But if you have to offer only one, know that those who push for same-sex marriage base their case on something factually indefensible -- that children do not benefit from having a father and a mother; and on something morally indefensible -- ignoring what is best for children.

Children who are sexually abused can suffer lifelong psychological damage. Statistics show that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to sexually abuse children.

"several studies reveal that while no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, approximately 35% of paedophiles are homosexual... It is impossible to determine the number of male paedophiles, but they may constitute as much as 10% of male homosexuals."

Moreover, even though individual homosexual parents may not be paedophiles, their children are much more likely to mix with members of the gay community where the risk of coming into contact with paedophiles is much greater than normal. The U.S Lesbian Mardi Gras parade has featured a fair-sized troop of children in recent years. Such children - said to be of homosexual parents - were exposed to the obscene content and actions of adults on a number of the floats in the parade.

Now I usually ignore Big D's posts, because they all say the same thing. So I decided to read this post right above mine, thinking to myself that he's probably spouting off about how 35% of pedophiles are gay, according to some poll. And sure enough... there was the 35% statistic... AGAIN.

Raising a child to adulthood is a twenty-year task. Adoption agencies generally require adoptive parents to be less than about 40 years old so that they are likely to be fit and active until the child reaches adulthood.

Homosexual longevity has been studied by a US research team headed by Dr Paul Cameron, published in 1994. Over 13 years, the team compared 6737 obituaries from 18 US homosexual publications with a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers. Those from the regular newspapers were similar to US averages for longevity: the median age of death (ie the age at which half had died) for married men was 75 and for married women was 79 years. For unmarried or divorced men the median age of death was 57 and for unmarried women it was 71 years.

Homosexuals had a much shorter life span. The male homosexuals who died of AIDS had a median age at death of only 39 and those who died of non-AIDS causes lived only slightly longer - to a median age of 42 years. The lesbians were similar - they had a median age of death of 44 years.

The contrast in survival to age 65 was even more stark. The regular newspapers showed that 80% of married men and 85% of married women reached 65 years and so did 32% of unmarried or divorced men and 60% of unmarried women. For homosexuals the picture was grim: only 1% of homosexual men with AIDS, just 9% of other homosexual men and 20% of lesbians reached 65 years.

Three percent of male homosexuals died violently - they were 116 times more likely to be murdered, were much more likely to commit suicide and had more road accidents than other people. Heart attacks, cancer and liver failure were exceptionally common. For lesbians 18% died of murder, suicide or accidents - a rate 456 times higher than other women their age. Almost a third of the lesbians died from cancer, often of the reproductive organs.

Children growing up in a violent home are at a significant disadvantage. They may react by becoming socially withdrawn, or they may become aggressive and violent themselves. Yet studies repeatedly show that violence is disproportionately associated with the homosexual lifestyle.

For example, most murders of homosexuals are committed by other homosexuals. Jim Warren, a counsellor at the US Washington State Corrections Center, did initial interviews for almost all younger murderers jailed in his state between 1971 and 1982. After examining their entire case files, Warren later testified that he was struck by the frequent involvement of homosexuality, out of all proportion to the percentage of homosexuals in the community (less than 2%). He told the Law and Justice Committee of the Washington State Senate on 15/12/89 that he had observed a recurrent pattern. Although the motive listed in the case report was often robbery, "about 50% of the time" it was also associated with homosexuality. Typically, a homosexual would meet someone at a bar or park and invite him to his home. Before the morning, an argument would ensue and either he or his visitor would be dead.

Homosexuals and bisexuals are disproportionately involved in murder, particularly serial or mass murders. Famous Italian homosexuals - fashion designer Gianni Versace and film director Pier Paulo Pasolini - were both murdered by younger homosexual men. US mass murderer Jeffrey Dahmer convicted in 1992 was a homosexual who enticed 17 young men and boys to his home, killed them and ate their body parts. There are many other examples, including Wade Frankum in the NSW Strathfield massacre in 1991 and the South Australian Truro murderers Worrell and Miller in the late 1970s.

Homosexuals are disproportionately involved in sado-masochism (S&M) - gaining sexual pleasure from inflicting and receiving pain. Sydney research shows that S&M has been practised by about 40% of homosexuals and regularly by some 12%. Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras parades often feature floats showing a near-naked man being whipped.

Obituary statistics reveal that the homosexual lifestyle is violence and accident prone. This may be partly a result of the high incidence of drug abuse. A survey of Australian male homosexuals published by the National Centre in HIV Social Research in 1998, found that "recreational drug use is high among homosexually active men by comparison with the general population. Particular drugs, especially the so-called `party drugs', are used by a sizable percentage of homosexually active men."

US ethics professor Thomas Schmidt says that substance abuse, depression and suicide are in "epidemic" proportions in the homosexual community. Citing references, he says: "The combined results of two studies reveal that 47% of 405 male homosexual subjects had a history of alcohol abuse (compared to 24% of males generally) and 51 % had a history of (illicit) drug abuse (compared to 7% of males generally). A comparable study of female homosexuals revealed 35% with a history of alcohol abuse (compared to 5% of females generally)... The current consensus of researchers is that about 30% of homosexuals, both male and female, are problem drinkers, as compared to 10% of the general population."

Homosexuals, especially lesbians, have higher rates of domestic violence than do heterosexual couples. Susan Holt, coordinator of the domestic violence unit of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, said in 1996 that "domestic violence is the third largest health problem facing the gay and lesbian community today and trails only behind AIDS and substance abuse... in terms of sheer numbers and lethality."

A national US survey of married couples found the average rate of domestic violence was less than 5% per year. Unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals reported higher rates of violence - about 20-25% per year. In contrast, interviews of women involved in a "committed, cohabiting lesbian relationship" for the past six months found that about 43% of the relationships had been violent.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!